Reform UK has unveiled plans to impose substantial financial penalties on companies that employ people without the legal right to work in Britain, with senior executives potentially facing prison sentences under the proposed measures.
The party says large businesses could be fined up to 10 per cent of their annual worldwide turnover, while company directors responsible for employing illegal workers could face sentences of up to five years.
Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman, argued that existing penalties had failed to deter businesses that deliberately benefit from unlawful employment. He claimed some firms had built profitable business models around workers who may be vulnerable to exploitation and less able to challenge poor pay or unsafe conditions.
The proposals would reportedly place greater responsibility on employers, including in cases where a company claimed it had been unaware of an individual’s immigration status. However, the precise legal test for personal criminal liability has not yet been fully explained.
That detail will be crucial. There is a significant difference between a business knowingly employing people without permission to work and a responsible employer being deceived by forged documents, account sharing or an undisclosed subcontracting arrangement.
A fair system must be strong enough to punish deliberate abuse while protecting companies that can demonstrate they completed every required check in good faith. Without that distinction, an eye-catching policy could create uncertainty for thousands of honest employers.
Public Tip-Off Scheme Planned
Reform UK also intends to establish what it has called a “Turkish Barbers tip line”, through which members of the public could report businesses suspected of using illegal labour.
People providing credible information that leads to enforcement action or a successful prosecution could receive a financial reward funded from penalties recovered from offending companies. The size of any reward and the process for assessing reports would need to be determined through legislation.
Public intelligence can help authorities identify hidden exploitation, particularly where frightened workers feel unable to speak openly. Nevertheless, any reporting system would require strict safeguards against malicious complaints, commercial disputes and discriminatory assumptions.
The label attached to the proposed tip line is likely to attract particular scrutiny. Barbers, takeaway restaurants, car washes and nail salons have previously been targeted during immigration enforcement operations, but the overwhelming majority of businesses in these sectors should not be treated with suspicion merely because of their owners’ background or the appearance of their premises.
Lawful business owners understandably feel hurt when an entire trade or community appears to be associated with wrongdoing. Enforcement should always be based on credible evidence and behaviour—not ethnicity, nationality, accent or appearance. Otherwise, a policy intended to uphold the law risks damaging trust between local communities and the authorities.
Existing Penalties Already Reach £60,000
Under current UK rules, employers may receive a civil penalty of up to £60,000 for each person found to be working illegally if the required right-to-work checks were not completed correctly.
An employer may also face an unlimited fine and up to five years in prison if prosecutors prove that the employer knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that someone did not have permission to work. Businesses can also face closure, licence revocation and director disqualification.
Employers that carry out the prescribed checks correctly can normally establish a legal defence against a civil penalty. Reform’s proposal therefore appears designed to create a considerably tougher corporate penalty and place a stronger duty on senior management.
Supporters are likely to argue that a penalty linked to worldwide turnover would prevent major international companies from treating fixed fines as an ordinary cost of doing business. For a global corporation, even a £60,000 penalty may have little deterrent effect when compared with its total revenue.
Critics, however, will ask whether a 10 per cent global-turnover penalty would be proportionate in every case. Such a fine could amount to billions of pounds for a multinational company, potentially affecting employees, pension funds, suppliers and customers who had no involvement in the offence.
Clear thresholds, an independent appeals process and rigorous standards of evidence would therefore be essential. Tough language may capture public frustration, but durable legislation must also survive scrutiny in Parliament and the courts.
Delivery Platforms Under Pressure
The announcement follows growing concern about illegal working in the delivery sector, where account sharing has made enforcement particularly difficult.
Under account-sharing arrangements, a person who has passed a platform’s eligibility checks may allow someone else to use the account. That second individual may not have completed identity or right-to-work checks, leaving platforms uncertain about who is actually making deliveries.
Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat have previously said they are strengthening their procedures to prevent misuse. Deliveroo says it carries out right-to-work checks, conducts repeated identity checks and uses fraud-detection technology to identify suspicious activity.
The company has also said that illegal working must be addressed and that organised groups sometimes attempt to abuse delivery platforms. Its response highlights the complicated reality behind the debate: technology can make flexible employment easier, but it can also create gaps that dishonest operators are quick to exploit.
The Government has already moved to extend right-to-work responsibilities into the gig economy and delivery sector. Existing Home Office guidance confirms that failures can lead to fines, business closures, director disqualification and possible imprisonment.
Enforcement Activity Reaches Record Levels
Home Office figures published earlier this year showed that immigration enforcement visits and arrests connected with illegal working had reached their highest recorded levels since the current data series began in 2019.
Authorities conducted 12,791 visits during 2025, representing a 57 per cent increase from 8,122 visits in the previous year. Operations included visits to barbers, nail salons, takeaway restaurants, car washes and other workplaces.
In one operation, the Home Office announced that ten workers connected with parcel company Evri had been arrested while further enquiries were conducted. An arrest does not itself establish guilt, but the case illustrated the Government’s increasing focus on sectors involving subcontracting and flexible employment.
The Home Office maintains that illegal working harms responsible businesses, exposes vulnerable individuals to exploitation and can provide income for organised immigration crime. Ministers say closing gaps in the gig economy will help create fairer competition for employers that follow the rules.
A Debate About Fairness as Well as Immigration
Reform UK has presented its policy as a defence of British workers and law-abiding businesses. The party argues that illegal employment can undercut wages, reduce opportunities and weaken confidence in the immigration system.
There is a legitimate human concern at the centre of that argument. Workers without secure status can be placed in deeply unequal relationships with employers, leaving them frightened to report unpaid wages, excessive hours or dangerous conditions. The consequences are not merely economic figures on a government spreadsheet; they affect real people who may feel trapped and disposable.
At the same time, the debate should not imply that every migrant worker, asylum seeker or foreign-owned business is acting unlawfully. Many migrants have a full legal right to work and make an important contribution to Britain’s economy. Responsible reporting and enforcement must preserve that distinction.
The most effective policy would combine firm penalties for deliberate exploitation with reliable digital checks, properly funded enforcement teams and accessible routes for workers to report abuse safely.
Reform UK’s proposals are likely to appeal to voters who believe existing laws are not being enforced consistently. Yet their credibility will depend on more than the severity of the headline penalties. The central questions are whether the measures can be applied fairly, whether innocent businesses will be protected and whether enforcement will focus on evidence rather than stereotypes.
Britain has every right to insist that its employment and immigration laws are respected. But strength and fairness should not be treated as opposing values. A serious system needs both.